Posted
by
timothy
on Thursday January 13, 2011 @01:49PM
from the we'd-like-to-see-those-please dept.

wiredmikey writes "The Federal Bureau of Investigation on Wednesday asked the administrator of an Internet game to hand over records of communications by Jared Loughner, following a Wall Street Journal article describing disturbing messages the accused shooter wrote over a three-month period last year. In an interview, David McVittie, the administrator of the Web game Earth Empires, said he was contacted by the FBI, which requested the files, including 131 messages that Mr. Loughner wrote."

The going after twitter messages looks kind of dubious, but this request has more grounding - it would be very easy for someone to use any online RPG to use as a conduit for messages if they thought someone might be monitoring email or phone. Given that the U.S. is treating him as a criminal suspect (which I'll leave the validity of to the side), this request seems pretty reasonable to build a case against someone.

Given that the U.S. is treating him as a criminal suspect (which I'll leave the validity of to the side),

Say what? You'll leave that to the side, will you? Well color me flabbergasted. He is technically a criminal suspect, because he has not been tried yet, but dozens of witnesses directly observed him committing murder. How can you question the validity of treating him as a criminal suspect?

Even if he is mentally ill, he is a criminal suspect. Insanity is a possible defense against criminal charges, it does not negate criminal charges. At his trial, he might be found not guilty by reason of insanity. Until then, he is a criminal suspect.

In reality, less than 5% of those who plead insanity are successful in the attempt. When they do succeed in their insanity plea, it doesn't let them off the hook. They are remanded to a mental hospital instead of a prison, and spend on average, a longer time in the hospital than they would in a prison for the same crime.

The insanity plea isn't a get out of jail free card. It means rather than jail, you spend years of your life in a padded room, possibly strapped down or restrained in jackets, and fed

The insanity defense really is not the get out of jail free card that many seem to think it is. First of all, it very rarely works. Secondly, when someone is found not guilty by reason of insanity, they are forcibly committed to a mental institution that is for all intents and purposes, a prison. The only difference is that the guilty party does not have a fixed length sentence -- they are there until the doctors in charge of them decide that they are fit to regain society. In almost all cases, this turns o

The point is that the logic and lawfulness of this request applies to anyone to government is treating as a criminal suspect with due process, and that the specific details of this case aren't the issue.

Interviews with his friends say that he did not listen to talk radio, did not watch the news, was registered as an indepentant and did not vote. I cant recall the name of the video his friends said really set him off, but it was full of stuff on how christianity was a farce and 9/11 consiriacies. Nothing remotely points to him as a Tea Party member or a conservative, except for people that might have some political agenda to associate him with that.

Did you even *read* anything about it? Or are you just making things up as you go?

He had a *personal* thing with the congresswoman. He had asked her a question a few years ago and got a smoke up your ass answer. He took it personally. He asked her a question and she did not answer it. So somehow he took that to mean 'she must die'. I am sure he has a logic train here. You dont just go crazy. He was building up to this for a few years.

It is important to be aware that the question he asked her was something very close to, "How do you know words mean anything?" How do you answer that question when it comes at you out of nowhere? So, her answer wasn't a politician's non-answer to a politically dangerous question. it was a non-answer to a question that didn't really have an answer (at least in that context).

I think the entire debate around the rhetoric has been skewed - both the people that are claiming the rhetoric caused him to do it (who knows, but most likely not) and the people that are crying foul at even bringing up the rhetoric.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to discuss the rhetoric as a result of the shooting for this reason: it demonstrates why the gunsight imagery and "2nd amendment solution" talk is so repugnant in the first place. This tragedy - a bullet through a congresswoman's brain, a dea

Have you read anything about this? Reading his rants, and reading accounts from his friends and acquaintances makes it clear that this is probably not a case of "hornies". A couple years ago he attended an event that Giffords was holding and asked her something like "how can their be government if all words are lies" or something close to that, she didn't answer him, he was mad.

He was probably experiencing an escalating case of schizophrenia (judging by the course of events, his words, and his writing style), she was a target since she was "controlling grammar" or such. I'm also guessing he did it to draw attention to his "philosophy", hoping an event like that would make people read (watch) his stuff, and realize the truth of the "new currency", and "grammar"... (Notice the shear amount of crazy?).

This topic has made me doubly sick. I'm, obviously, sickened that this disturbed person slaughtered innocent people. I'm also sickened that we somehow want to turn it into bullshit politics*, and idiotic partisan rhetoric. Doing so completely misses the point, and mocks the actual event. Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, the Tea Party movement, or the GOP had NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THIS. I'm a lifelong Democrat, and a bona fide socialist, I have nothing against calling out the Republicans on their crap, but this isn't the appropriate event for it. It is actually a bit distasteful. The kid was insane, and not obviously politically motivated (at least motivated in any way us sane folk can really comprehend).

Hell, before a single fact actually rolled down the media pipeline, we were already blaming Palin. Before we KNEW anything at all outside of the fact that someone shot a democrat and a bunch of innocent bystanders we already were ramping up the partisan rhetoric. And now we're running with it, even when the available facts point in the other direction, and we still don't even have half the facts.

Do these people here on Slashdot realize that by blaming the GOP, they sound just like the idiots that blame violent video games for violence?

The fact that Palin & the GOP's rhetoric included references to reloading, using the ammo box instead of the ballot box, "taking out" bad politicians, removing the liberal disease, and putting targetting crosshairs on a map while listed the name of the politican who just happened to be shot in the head, are a complete coincidence.

Yes, probably. I'm not agreeing with or defending rhetoric, I find it distasteful, and find it one of the more depressing trends to strike my country in a very long time. While Palin and the GOPs rhetoric is nasty, there is no evidence that they lead to this event. That is the point. It is as good an explanation as the NASA connection (Loughner believed the Mars rover was a lie, Giffords' husband is an astronaut), meaning not very good, since it is nothing more than speculation. Or that he said he liked Mein Kampf, and she was a Jew. Or that he is in Arizona so this somehow comes back to immigration policy (I, surprisingly, haven't seen that one in the wild yet).

So, since it is a total coincidence, should we stop examining violent rhetoric that has been said by politicians or should we take a moment to reflect? Why should we be concerned about the words that politicians use, knowing that there are disturbed people who might engage in violence?

Never said that, we SHOULD examine the violent rhetoric, even if this even has nothing to do with it. Just because they look nice when you link them together, mean they are linked, or should be associated with each other. By doing so your using this tragedy towards your own ends, which is a bit disgusting, no matter how good your ends are.

If it comes out that there is a connection to the current GOP rhetoric, then by all means make a point of it. These is no causal connection yet discovered though. If we find Sarah Palin posters, and a bust of Glenn Beck wreathed in flowers, then we can use this to show how partisan (not just Republican) rhetoric is dangerous.

The infamous crosshairs map may not be to blame in any way, but it is still irresponsible. Personally, I have a very hard time believing that this guy was obsessed with a member of congress to the point of attacking her, yet had never read a blog post about h

I'm sure he has. But his previous experience with her was definitely not a "tea party" question. "How can there be government if all words are a lie" isn't the type of thing I've heard any Tea Party person say. I doubt it is a Palin speaking point. It is a strange a deluded question spawned from a sick mind.

We don't even know if Giffords was attacked because she was a politician or because she was a high visibility target.

I think there is a great deal of difference between playing a game like Grand theft auto, and listening to a politician say that their opponent is destroying this country and ending our way of life.

You realize that politicians have been saying that as long as their has been politicians saying things, right?

He is a registered independent and never registered Republican, nor has any affiliation with the Tea Party.

He is pro-pot, anti-religion, and pro-Communism. He certainly doesn't fall within the demographic of any Republican or Tea Party member that I know of. He did have a personal history of hatred with Giffords and that appears to be his motivation. But feel free to continue to invent lies at your leisure.

Nothing on the record shows he was pro communism, he happened to have read Marx, but he also read Ayn Rand. Hmmm, pro-pot, anti-religion, read Marx and Rand? To me, that sounds more like a libertarian than a liberal or a conservative.

He listed "The Communist Manifesto" and "Mein Kampf" among his favorite books. He listed Ayn Rand among his favorite authors. There is a certain philosophical consistency to liking both "The Communist Manifesto" and "Mein Kampf", but Ayn Rand doesn't fit there anywhere. I just don't see how the line of logic that goes through both "The Communist Manifesto" and "Mein Kampf" ever intersects any lines of logic that go through Ayn Rand.

And very near the end of Atlas Shrugged, where a decent human by Rand's own standards is abandoned on a deserted railroad line to probably die, because while he is basically ethical (again, by Rand's definitions), he doesn't have the LEET skills of one of Rand's supermen, and the point is that's right, he should resign himself to die if needed as collateral damage of their right to join John Galt? Rand writes against human sacrefice, and then shows one at the end of the book, but she's somehow diametrically

Your fiction is a fiction. Nobody was claiming he was a Tea Partier or conservative, they were claiming that crazy people are like powder kegs, and that pundits on the right have been throwing lit matches everywhere hoping to set one off. They have succeeded in setting off the crazies again and again in the last few years, and they will continue to try to set off the crazies against their opponents on the left. The way I see it, pundits on the right have gotten away with murder, more than once. They know full well that their words will have an impact on crazy people. Look at that loon arrested for trying to blow up the Tides Foundation. Never heard of it? Then you must not watch Glenn Beck, he is the only person on national television ever to mention the Tides Foundation, and he portrayed them as anti-American. But of course, the crazy who tried to blow them up is not his fault, even though said crazy would never even have known about the Tides Foundation were it not for the likes of Glenn Beck.

No, what I'm saying is that we should not call our political rivals terrorists and enemies of the state. We should not say they are trying to destroy America. We should not use violent, warlike rhetoric in political discourse. When Sarah Palin uses gunsites to target people she disagrees with, and says things like "lock and load" and "Don't retreat, reload" in reference to fellow politicians, that is dangerous rhetoric. If she doesn't realize that that sort of rhetoric can trigger a crazy person, she should

Where did you get that? Perhaps anti-Religion, but he, apparently, quit smoking pot, so it is very hard to see where he stood on that. As for pro-Communism, how the hell did you reach that conclusion? Reading Marx? Millions of college kids read Marx every year. Hell, I've read Mein Kampf, and I'm not a Nazi or anti-semitic, I've read the Tuner Diaries, and I'm not insane. I've read the Bible, and I'm not religious. I've read the Bhagavad Gita, and I'm n

Citation, please? I help organize my local tea party group, and Giffords is a pro-gun legislator. Even if you take for granted that conservatives / tea partiers would cheer the death of a Congresswoman, this particular Congresswoman is somewhat aligned with our cause. Not perfect, of course (off the top of my head, I believe she voted for Obamacare), but she's no Pelosi.

You are not intereacting with the sort of Tea Party members I have. In fact, my expeience is the opposite of yours - the Tea Party members I've intreacted with are entirely focused on issues of taxation, immigration, healthcare financing, and states' rights. And they are a healthy mix of various races, admittedly almost all openly heterosexual, both married and unmarried, and also overhelmingly spiritual, mostly Christian.

If they hated "everyone who isn't a rich white protestant heterosexual in a traditional family role.", about one half would hate the other half. And the other half would hate themselves. That's not entirely implausible, but usually the self-loathers don't bother to go so far out of their way to do so. They have ample opportunity to hate themselves before they get their teeth brushed in the morning, no need to form a political movement to do so publicly.

When one sees 60% increases of the sales of the exact same make of pistol as was used in the attack right after the attack that should likely be interpreted as a statement of support for the attack as well (I do not have a link to the FBI handy but the figure has been reported in several papers). Anyone with brains over at the FBI (I would think that would be a decent percentage of them) is shitting bricks right now.

You obviously don't know how politics works in the US. Let me clear it up a bit.

A tragedy happened. A completely unpredictable and random tragedy. Do we get sad and punish the perp? NO!! Lord knows, we have to DO something. We must angry and then a law has to be passed. What sort of law, seeing how the event was unpredictable and random? Why, we must outlaw the specific model of gun that was used in the attack!! Of course the next nutjob will use a different type of gun. Or a machete. Or a car.

I live in Victoria, Canada... we had two young teens murder a young girl, it was all planned and VERY sad what they did to her.

They used WOW to communicate, and one guy admitted to another friend to killing her on WOW... and they got those records.

Not surprised at all. I'm actually very satisfied knowing that NO channel of communication should be considered '100% secure'. Face to face is the only place 'privacy' has a chance at existing... and I say chance, because technology can be anywhere at anytime.

Hopefully these messages give more insight... what an amazingly sad example of how broken our society is, and how helpless the parents are when their ADULT son is off the hook

Lots of folks did do something to help. It is pretty clear that nearly everyone who knew him saw his descent into madness and tried to help in some way. But it is very hard to help the mentally ill against their will.

I'm actually very satisfied knowing that NO channel of communication should be considered '100% secure'.

While it may not be 100% secure, it's not very difficult to even make things like e-mail, Instant Messengers, etc. extremely secure. All you have to do is make use of plug-in's that enable PGP, Blowfish, or other good quality encryption. As long as you use a good encryption key of sufficient length & complexity then there's virtually no way law enforcement could crack your messages. That is, of course, unless the NSA gets involved. wink wink.

I don't think the prosecutors are worried about proving he did it. However, his defense will likely mount an insanity plea. Proof of pre-planning pretty much kills an insanity plea, so any evidence that they have that he pre-planned this is definitely important to the prosecution.

Also, I think they haven't ruled out that someone else was involved in the planning of the attack, so they are still looking for any evidence relating to this. Getting these records is simply competent lawyering by the prosecution.

How does "[p]roof of pre-planning pretty much [kill] an insanity plea"? Have you never read "The Tell-Tale Heart"? Sure it's fiction, but many insane individuals (especially schizophrenics) are capable of extensive planning in their "madness".

It's important to establish that he knew what he was planning was wrong, and that he has the cognitive ability to distinguish "right" from "wrong" in a way that reasonable people understand it. I do not believe this will be a problem in his case.

There is another element. The federal case against him depends in part on his knowledge that the judge he shot was a judge. If he did know that he was assassinating a judge, the federal prosecution can seek a federal death penalty. They want to prosecute him und

Because from all outward signs he is a nutcase not a criminal. Crazy people are going to do things like this and throwing them in jail helps no one. It will not discourage other crazy folks, because they are mentally ill.

Wow, I hope you don't have any friends or family that are Schizophrenic or Bi-polar or have other mental illnesses. They might be hurt by your insinuation that they have no control over their actions are are basically ticking time bombs waiting to explode and kill dozens of innocent people.

For the record, there are an estimated 20 million people with schizophrenia in the world, and that is only one of the many diseases that will earn someone the moniker 'crazy'. You'd think if they were all an inch away f

I am the same without my meds. Mine are not even for a psychiatric condition but a hormonal one. Without them I fly in to fits of rage for no reason. I even will claim I do not need my medication, latter after taking it I know I was wrong.

No. Putting him in a home for the mentally ill will out at risk the non-violent residents. If he really is mentally ill, he can be institutionalized in a maximum security mental institution until such time as he is fit to stand trial. That time spent institutionalized will not count towards his eventual sentence.

You can argue that anyone who wants to murder innocent people is a nutjob. And there is evidence this was pre-meditated.

An insanity plea doesn't get you off just because you're a little nutty. The purpose of an insanity plea is for people who have lost connect with reality to the extent that they truly don't understand the repercussions of their actions.

There's more to this kind of case than "Did he shoot a bunch of people in broad daylight?", obviously he did. You can bet the defense is going to play the mental illness card. Communications over the past year with him talking lucidly of killing people goes a long way towards proving that his mental illness isn't the direct cause.

It's easy to see his actions and watch his videos and say "Dude's crazy and he killed some people because of it" and move on, but you need to remember that there are millions of

It's easy to see his actions and watch his videos and say "Dude's crazy and he killed some people because of it" and move on, but you need to remember that there are millions of schizophrenics in the world that don't go around shooting dozens of innocent people

True but, if your read DSM-V draft section on schizophrenia [dsm5.org] you will learn that it not a specific disease but a continuum of disorder. Their is a varying level of lucidity present in the various form of the disorder therefore some untreated schizophrenics are really walking time bombs.

For those who don't recognize the name, Jared Loughner is the fellow accused of the shooting spree in Tuscon that claimed six lives and seriously wounded a U.S. Representative. Given that he was arrested at the scene and two eyewitnesses reported having wrested a smoking gun from his grasp, I mean, innocent till proven guilty and all, but it would be hard to argue that calling him a "suspect" is jumping to conclusions.

Amazing how many take what you said out of context. As for the content, that is exactly what I was thinking. This isn't a fishing exposition, this is gathering evidence to demonstrate forethought of his actions, which is necessary for this type of investigation. Not only is it acceptable, but obviously necessary for them to be exercising due diligence in prosecuting the case, assuming they have any suspicion that the logs will provide ANY insight into his actions.

I haven't kept up on the news recently, and while the name rang a bell I hadn't really looked into this story until now. Now looking at it quickly, and skimming the article...

I agree with you, though I think whatever they find needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Loughner is about the same age as me, and I'm not going to lie, guys our age like to still pretend we are in high school. We like the attention that comes with being a comedian and we'll use jokes that kind of go against the grain of society to

I think we agree... I said that's what they were doing.Unless you are commenting on the twitter thing, but that's a little less clear to me if they need the information they are seeking to build a case. It's a pretty limited set of people there so it might be the case, though the thing is all twitter messages are public and so I don't see what they would really get out of it once they know the identities they seek.

Too many witnesses. This case is open and shut. Any information requests, while they may end up using them in court, are done primarily out of curiosity. The FBI is just trying to figure out why people lose it and rampage, and they will likely be upset when they discover there is no reason.

Why exactly is this news or a surprise? Will everyone be shocked because they request credit card, banking and cell phone information too?

No, but the first few times they did request phone or credit card information it was news. There was a time when cell phones weren't a ubiquitous part of our world, so this serves as a reminder of what is becoming a larger and more involved part of our lives. If this happens in a dozen more high-profile cases, it will no longer be interesting, just like cops/jobs using Facebook is becoming a very boring story now compared to a few years ago.

It is a surprise because it does nothing to prove that he did, or didn't shoot a bunch of people. This is for the later "blame game" that will be played out by the lawyers that has no real bearing on guilt or innocence of the suspect. The end "blame game" is of course not part of "justice" in any sense, but has become ingrained into the legal system because it plays upon the emotions and sympathies of juries.

It's investigating his state of mind and whether he planed it or just went on a random shooting spree.

The FBI (well the prosecutor) wants to be able to counter the insanity claim the defense will make. Or if you have a friendlier view of law enforcement actually want to determine if he is legally sane...

But yes, if he's been playing GTA/whatever then the media circus is warming up.

Legally a crime of passion, and premeditated murder are two different things. If they can prove he discussed killing her in advance, it matters.

Not to mention they may need to build a case against a possible insanity plea.

Not to mention the fact that he came to scene with another person. People keep forgetting there may be an accomplice here who hasn't been arrested. If they believe he discussed and planned the murders with an accomplice, then finding those conversations is critical.

They want to see if he's insane or not. Given the amount of crazy this guy has displayed, it is possible he's actually legally insane. Part of determining that will be looking in to the communications he's made. That's going to include things in games, as well as e-mail and so on. The more information the better.

Obviously, they have plenty of probable cause connecting him to an actually serious crime, and they probably obtained a warrant in this case to get these records. While Loughner may not have left explicit notes along the lines of "I'm going to shoot people", it would definitely be relevant for the purpose of establishing his mental state.

Not every search-and-seizure is objectionable, you know. Sometimes, the government is actually doing its job properly.

Yes, it certainly is fair. It would have been preferable if the admin in question had demanded to see a warrant first though. Demanding a warrant every time will help stop FBI fishing expeditions, and only inconvenience those who really deserve the data a tiny bit.

now get back to your keyboard and find something to whine about hysterically!

You know what makes me sick? You know what makes me so mad I just want to punch a kitten?

People not using proper capitalization and punctuation. Seriously, what the hell is your problem? Carolingian script was invented to make it easier to separate words and sentences. What do you have against the period? Did a period kill your parents or something? I almost hope one did - anyone too lazy to use proper punctuation deserves no parents.

Hey, I have no doubt Loughner said some creepy stuff on some online games. I have $10 that says none of it was half as bad as the shit that I hear Halo-playing 12 year olds say on XBox Live at night though.

It is rather pointless to get this information and perhaps dangerous. Things said in-game could be construed by others to mean things other than what they intended. While undoubtedly Loughtner is guilty, it sets a disturbing precedent where people will be judged out of context for what they said. I mean, whats next? Arresting someone because they said in the middle of a Call of Duty game that they were going to shoot someone (referring to the game)?

Just about any trial will involve a jury judging intent. Saying in Call of Duty that you were planning to shoot someone is not particularly confusing when it comes to intent, and any defense lawyer would be sure to point that out. OTOH, saying that you were plannning to shoot someone by their real name when there's no record of them ever playing CoD, that would be quite relevent to intent.

In the current culture of paranoia, I'm careful about discussing gaming topics in public places, because someone who o

No, this isn't "Dangerous", it's part of the give and take of a criminal trial, and requesting this information was a perfectly proper thing to do. Just like you can use phone recordings, e-mail messages, letters, conversations, etc.... why should there be special status for his online message transcripts?

Yes, things can be taken out of context. And that is an argument the defense can make, should the prosecution choose to use this evidence in the trial. The mere possibility of the evidence being mis-int

I'm an administrator for earth empires, though I'm not the one mentioned by name in the summary. I'm posting AC for obvious reasons.

The FBI only wanted information from an alliance hosting site related to the game. I believe an appropriate equivalent would be a WoW guild setting up a forum to discuss strategy, organize raids, and things like that. Information was obtained from the forum, but not from the game itself.

The alliance hosting site in question happens to be run by one of the game's administrators. Providing information to the FBI did not violate the site's privacy policy in this case because the site's community manager had already leaked information to the WSJ. Even if we had wished to fight the subpoena, we do not have the legal resources to do so.

I hope that this provides a little more context and clarifies the situation.

No, it is not. You do not understand what "fascist" and "dictatorial" actually mean. Plus, exhortation to violence is not protected speech. Finally, even if it were protected speech, the government is allowed to access it with a warrant while building a criminal case. You, sir, are an idiot.

I'm pretty sure "exhortation to violence" is actually protected speech (in the US), as long as it's not immediate violence - a clear and present danger. If a skinhead website wants to go on a rant about how the Jews are evil and should be killed, without suggesting any specific and immediate illegal acts ("are there any queers in the theater tongiht? Get em up against the wall!"), that's protected. Eventually we'll fuck the constitution yet again and outlaw unpopular speech (aka hate speech), but it hasn't quite happened yet.

Personally, I think free speech should be an absolute. Thusly I should be able to say I think all Yankee fans should die in a fire without fear of being dragged to court for it. All speech, even hate speech, should be protected.

That being said, this isn't an issue of prosecuting him for speech. It is a matter of using his statements to prove the murders were premeditated.

The guy shot 20 people in broad daylight, killing six including a little girl, an old man trying to shield his wife with his body, and a federal judge. Among the 14 wounded were a US Rep who may never fully recover. He was only prevented from killing more people by people tackling him during a reload... If ever there was an excuse to get a warrant for some transcripts this is it.